The Whole
Truth about Fr. Leonard Feeney, Feeneyism, Feeneyites and the
Supposed Excommunication Explained and Exposed

This article contains content used from author: Brother Peter Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery / mostholyfamilymonastery.com

Father
Leonard Edward Feeney (Lynn, Massachusetts February 18, 1897 –
Ayer, Massachusetts January 30, 1978) was an American Catholic
priest, belonging to the Society of Jesus who is best known for his
resistance to liberalism and defending the Catholic doctrine of extra
Ecclesiam nulla salus ("outside the Church there is no
salvation"), arguing that baptism of blood and baptism of desire
are unavailing of the graces of water baptism, and that no one can be
saved without belonging to the Catholic Church and personal
submission to the Pope. He fought the Modernist agenda which spread
through the world following the Second Vatican Council.

Feeneyism
is the doctrinal position held by Feeneyites (and true
Catholics) associated with Leonard Feeney (1897–1978), a Jesuit
priest and founder of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
who advocated a strict (and correct) Catholic interpretation of the
doctrine extra Ecclesiam nulla salus ("outside the Church
there is no salvation").

Pope
Eugene IV, Council of Florence, The Athanasian Creed, Sess. 8,
Nov. 22, 1439: “But it is necessary for eternal salvation
that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus
Christ... the Son of God is God and man... This is the
Catholic faith; unless each one believes this
faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

Fr.
Leonard Feeney was officially “excommunicated” in 1953 by
“The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office”
under Pope Pius XII for refusing to submit to ecclesiastical
authority, but his supporters claim that the excommunication was
invalid because the correct procedure was not followed and the reason
for excommunicating him was not in accordance to divine Catholic
faith or justice. He was reconciled to the Vatican II Church before
his death, but was allegedly not required to retract his position on
the doctrine in question, which is inscribed on his tombstone.

Pope
Pius XII who allowed the persecution and subsequent excommunication
of Father Leonard Feeney was by no means a staunch traditionalist.
His reforms, omissions and failures paved the way for Vatican II.
Just a few things that Pius XII did are:

- He promoted
Annibale Bugnini, the author of the New Mass, and began the
liturgical reform with his allowance of reforms in the Holy Week
Rites.

- He promoted men like Giovanni Montini (later Paul VI)
and Angelo Roncalli (later John XXIII), without which promotions
these men could never have had the influence or caused the
immeasurable destruction that they did.

- He taught that birth
control could be used by couples by means of the rhythm method (or
Natural Family
Planning), which is a frustration and a subordination of the
primary purpose of the marriage act – procreation.

-
He allowed the persecution and subsequent excommunication of Father
Leonard Feeney, whether through willful complicity, ignorance or
neglect, for doing what every Catholic priest should do: preach the
Gospel, defend the faith and adhere to defined dogma.

The
Catholicism Answer Book [Vatican II publication], Page 93: “A
famous declared excommunication took place in 1953 when the Vatican
punished a Boston priest, Father Leonard Feeney, for his refusal to
recant a distorted teaching on the principle of extra
ecclesia nulla salus (outside the church there is no
salvation). He erroneously and publicly maintained that only
Catholic Christians could go to heaven and Protestants would go to
hell unless they converted to Catholicism.”

This
really shows the ignorance of these men. When Father Feeney was
“excommunicated,” absolutely nothing was stated that the
“excommunication” was for a belief he held. But that
doesn’t matter to apostates like these men, because they are
evil. It’s also interesting to note that heretics like this,
who do not believe one bit in the necessity of Jesus Christ or the
Catholic faith, are major proponents of “baptism of desire”
and the “excommunication” of Fr. Feeney. That’s
quite revealing about the forces behind those two ideas.

In
1972 Father Feeney was supposedly
“reconciled” to what he thought was the Catholic Church
(in reality it was the Vatican II sect). If Father Feeney truly
needed to be reconciled, he would have had to recant any possible
erroneous or heretical positions. Yet, he was never
asked
to do that. Anyone who is truly excommunicated for heresy must
withdraw what they once held and proclaim belief in orthodoxy. But
Father Feeney was never asked to take back or repent from his
teaching on “Outside the Catholic Church there is no
salvation.” Why not? Because those of the Archdiocesan
establishment who arranged for the reconciliation knew the facts of
the case and that Father Feeney was not “excommunicated”
for heresy, but for disciplinary reasons.

But
for the pre- and post- Vatican II heretics who condemned and still
condemns the staunch priest Father Leonard Feeney, and despised and
still despise the dogma Outside the Catholic Church there is no
salvation, and sowed and still sows the seeds for the Great
Apostasy that is now upon us – for them it is no problem
believing that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church, while
simultaneously pretending to believe that there is no salvation
outside the Catholic Church. It is no problem for these people
because they are of evil (Mt. 5:37).

Pope
Gregory XVI, SummoIugiter Studio, May 27, 1832, on no
salvation outside the Church: “Finally some of these
misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men
are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even
heretics may attain eternal life… You know how
zealously Our predecessors taught that article of faith which
these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith
and of unity for salvation… Omitting other appropriate
passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the
Fathers, We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly
testifies that THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
He says: ‘The holy universal Church teaches that it is not
possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all
who are outside of her will not be saved.’ Official
acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the
decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of
Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There is one
universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is
saved.’ Finally the same dogma is also expressly
mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See,
not only that which all Latin churches use, but also that which the
Greek Orthodox Church uses and that which other Eastern Catholics
use. We did not mention these selected testimonies because Wethought you were ignorant of that article of faith and in need of
Our instruction. Far be it from Us to have such an absurd and
insulting suspicion about you. But We are so concerned about this
serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such
remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from
reinforcing this truth with many testimonies.”

In
fact, as part of the “reconciliation” ceremony, Father
Feeney was asked to profess one of the three Creeds of the Church.
So, without any objection, he devoutly recited the Athanasian
Creed.
This ancient and venerable creed begins and ends with these solemn
words:

“Whoever
wishes to be saved needs above all else to hold the Catholic Faith;
unless each one preserves this whole and entire, he will without a
doubt perish in eternity. … This is the Catholic Faith; unless
everyone believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

Therefore,
Father
Leonard Feeney was not “excommunicated”
for teaching that outside the Catholic Church and without submission
to the Roman Pontiff no one can be saved. He couldn’t be,
because the Church herself has dogmatically defined this.

Rather,
Father Leonard Feeney was unjustly
treated and persecuted
by heretical, negligent and ignorant churchmen in positions of
authority who abused the authority and of the offices they held (or
never held, since
heretics
have no authority, jurisdiction or membership in the Church) and
brought up uncanonical charges of disobedience to this priest of
Christ’s Church. We conclude, then, with the following summary
of those binding and infallible definitions of the Church Magisterium
concerning salvation that Father Feeney simply affirmed, taught, and
staunchly defended as they were solemnly declared:

The
Sacrament of Baptism makes one a member of the Church (Florence:
Denz. 696; [1314]; Council of Trent: Denz. 895; [1671]);

Anyone
not Baptized (sacramentally) is not a member of the Catholic Church
(Trent: Denz. 895; [1671]), that is, he is not “truly
incorporated into the Church” (Pope Leo IV- Council of
Valence III: Denz. 324);

The
Sacrament of Baptism is in water ONLY, the two (water and Baptism)
are inseparable, and neither is separable from its link with the
other (Pope St. Leo I: Tome-Council of Chalcedon I), and must
be confessed as such (Council of Vienne: Denz. 482; [903];
Trent: Denz. 858; [1615]);

The
Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation (Pope Benedict
XIV: Denz. 1470) for adults and for children alike (Vienne:
Ddnz. 482; [903]), and is optional for NO ONE (Trent: Denz.
861; [1618]).

The
“priests”, ecclesiastics and adherents of the Vatican II
sect, as well as the priests and followers of the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI
and all other independent, validly ordained traditional “Catholic”
priests in this great apostasy (and those who knowing this
information persist in denying this infallible dogma), as well as
those who obstinately support or agree with the heretical groups,
societies or sects, or the heresy advanced by these heretics, should
rightly fear, as Pope Gregory XVI says, because they will without a
doubt inherit a place in Hell for obstinately denying a Catholic
dogma if they do not repent and convert.

Pope
Gregory XVI, MirariVos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “They
should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who
are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they
disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him.Therefore,
‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold
the Catholic faith whole and inviolate(Athanasian Creed).”

The
facts presented in this article need to be made known so that the
good name of Father Leonard Feeney, M.I.C.M., can be restored among
Catholics and the immutable dogma of no salvation outside the
Catholic Church be once again proclaimed from the housetops that
the Vatican II sect can be opposed and condemned by everyone as the
heretical and apostate end times church that it really is.

Our
Lady of La Salette, Sept. 19, 1846: “Rome
will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ…
the Church will be in eclipse.”

Henry
Edward Cardinal Manning, The
Present Crisis of the Holy See,
1861, pp. 88-90: “The
apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its
destruction by Antichrist
may be thoughts very new to many Catholics, that I think it well to
recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda,
who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera,
Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarrez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome
shall apostatize from the Faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and
return to its ancient paganism.
… Then
the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall
be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible; hidden in
catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it
shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth.
Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.”

Anne
Catherine Emmerich: “In
those days, Faith will fall very low, and it
will be preserved in some places only,
in a few cottages and in a few families which God has protected from
disasters and wars.”

Was Fr.
Leonard Feeney a Heretic?

Fr.
Feeney remained in religious communion with the heretics who denied
the Salvation Dogma. He prayed with them and allowed others to attend
their Masses. And before he died in 1978, he formally entered into
religious communion with the salvation heretics by abjuring before
them by making a profession of faith. The reason Fr. Feeney cannot
yet be denounced as a formal heretic is because we do not know that
he ever was an obstinate heretic, that he had read the Second Vatican
Council’s documents, that he ever agreed with any heresy, or
had access to or were aware of the other heresies committed by the
apostate Vatican II antipopes, or was aware of the teaching that a
public formal heretic cannot be pope.

And
we do not know what catechism he used in his churches. We do not know
for certain that heresy was taught in the churches under his control,
or, if heresy was taught in his churches, we do not know if he
himself ever approved of such heresies being taught or that he ever
agreed with it being taught.

This
is not the case of the current-day Saint Benedict Centers and
the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary because it is known
that they have access to the heresies of the Vatican II Church and
its antipopes and the teaching that a public formal heretic cannot be
pope and yet they explicitly say there is no heresy in the Second
Vatican Council and that the apostate antipopes do not teach heresy
and they even explicitly teach that the Second Vatican Council is a
“true ecumenical council” and that the Vatican II
popes are true and “validly elected popes who retained their
pontifical offices.” And they deny the solemn and the
ordinary magisterium dogma that public formal heretics cannot hold
offices in the Catholic Church.

St.
Benedict Center Website, New Hampshire: “Q. What
about Vatican II and the conciliar popes? Are they real popes? Was
that council a genuine ecumenical council?...
John Paul II is the presently reigning Supreme Pontiff of the
Catholic Church. His predecessors (Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, and
John Paul I) were also validly elected popes who retained their
pontifical offices….The
Second Vatican Council was a true ecumenical council
since it took place under the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff.”
(See Question 7 for more on Vatican II.)

St.
Benedict Center Website, New Hampshire: “Q. Back to
Vatican II: Didn’t it teach heresy?We do not
have the authority to judge the decrees of an ecumenical council.
Ultimately, it is left to the authority of the Church — that
is, the pope — to separate the wheat from the chaff in the
confusing, long, often tortuous (and torturous) documents of that
Council.”

Notice
that they hold that Vatican II was a legitimate council of the
Catholic Church and that they claim to have no right to say that
Vatican II taught heresy!

St.
Benedict Center Website, New Hampshire: “Q. Doesthis mean you think the New Mass is invalid or sinful to
attend? A. No, it does not. The necessary form for the
consecration of the sacred Body and Blood of our Lord are present in
the Missa of Paul VI. Therefore we cannot deny its inherent validity
as a sacramental rite. Neither do we have the authority to
"forbid" any lay person from attending it, nor to determine
that a rite approved by the Church is sinful to attend.”

The
statement that the New Mass has the sufficient form of consecration
is a lie, but that’s not what I want to focus on here. Notice
that they hold that one cannot be forbidden to attend the New Mass!

Thus
they are to be considered formal heretical sects that fully recognize
and approve as “ecumenical” and “binding” the
heretical Vatican II documents and hence officially recognize
heresies as no heresies and formal heretics and apostates as true
popes or ecclesiastics, and hence all their followers must likewise
be presumed to be formal heretics, even though there is a small
possibility that some people attending these churches may be material
heretics and unaware of the heresies rampant in the Vatican II sect.

Whoever
does not denounce as formal heretics the Vatican II claimants like
John Paul II as an outright apostate, blasphemer, and heretic, and
condemn his crimes for what they are when they are aware of his
crimes, is guilty by sins of omission; and many, in order to defend
the crimes, will eventually explicitly profess heresy, whether or not
they are aware of it. Well, this has happened with Br. Francis Maluf
of the St. Benedicts Center in New Hampshire. A certain person,
William G. Norris, called Br. Francis on February 12, 2003, 4:00-4:24
pm MST. In this conversation, Br. Francis Maluf, the superior of the
Saint Benedict Center in New Hampshire, admitted to believing in the
Vatican II heresy that Muslims believe in and worship the true God.

Taken
From Exurge Michael Journal, Issue 19, May 2003:

Will
Norris: “Brother, what about Nostrae Aetate, paragraph
3. It says that Muslims worship God. Isn’t
that heresy?”

Br.
Francis: “No, Muslims do believe in God,
He who made heaven and earth.”

Will
Norris: “But isn’t the Most Holy Trinity God? So how can
you say Muslims worship God?”

Br.
Francis: “I am from the Arab world. When Muslims say Allah,
they mean God. Allah means God. They are referring to God that
made heaven and earth. You cannot accept the Trinity except
through divine revelation…”

So,
there you have it. Br. Francis told William that Muslims believe in
and worship the true God (he never denied that they worship the true
God and even went on to affirm that they “believe in God”)
and implies they never heard of Jesus Christ and the Most Holy
Trinity. Jesus already revealed to the world that He and the Most
Holy Trinity is God; most Muslims not only know it from reading the
Koran, but they also explicitly deny that Jesus and the Most Holy
Trinity is Godby
adhering to the heretical teachings found
in their religious book, the Koran. Nevertheless, Br. Francis
has the audacity to say that, “When Muslims say Allah, they
mean God” and that, “Allah means God. They
are referring to God that made heaven and earth.” No.
When Muslims say “Allah” they are not thinking of
or referring to the most Holy Trinity or Jesus Christ who made heaven
and earth, hence that they cannot and are
not referring to the true God that made heaven and earth
since they explicitly reject Jesus Christ and the Trinity. So when
Muslims say “Allah,” they are not referring to God, but
are referring to their own “God,” the so-called God of
the Koran, and this “God” – or rather, Satan –
rejects the Trinity and denies the Son.

Br.
Francis cannot have it both ways. He cannot truthfully say that Jesus
is God while saying Muslims, who deny that Jesus is God, also believe
in God. That is mixing the sacred with the profane (syncretism). It
is speaking with a double tongue and double heart.

Br.
Francis has also watered down John Paul II’s crime of kissing
the Koran by only referring to it as scandal.

Will
Norris: “Brother, what about John Paul II kissing the Koran?”

Br.
Francis: “These are all scandalous activities…”

It
is much more than just scandal. It is apostasy and idolatry. It is a
denial of Jesus Christ and the Most Holy Trinity. The Koran is the
Muslims’ “holy” book which blasphemes the Most Holy
Trinity and denies the Divinity of Jesus Christ. To revere the holy
book of a false religion has always been considered an act of
apostasy – a complete rejection of the true religion.

St.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II, Q. 12, A. 1, Obj. 2:
“… if anyone were to… worship at the tomb of
Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate.”

John
Paul II did the equivalent of worshipping at the tomb of Mahomet when
he kissed the blasphemous Koran, when he praised Islam and its
leaders countless times, and when he attended the mosque. Just
imagine what the Catholic saints would say about the Vatican II sect
and John Paul II?

In
fact, kissing the Koran is the same kind of crime that placed the
early Christians outside the Church and earned them the name “lapsi”
(the lapsed). Even those who broke under torture or just pretended to
respect and venerate idols in order to save their lives fell outside
the Catholic Church and had to abjure to re-enter Her.

The
Case of Father Feeney

Heretics
and modernists resist the truth, just as they resist Him who is the
Truth (Jn. 14:6). And because they resist the truth they resist
facts, because facts report truth without any error. One of the facts
that the modernists and heretics resist most of all is the fact that
the Catholic Church has infallibly taught that Outside the Catholic
Church There is No Salvation and that John 3:5 is to be taken as it
is written and that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for
salvation (Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament).

So
what do these people do with these facts staring them in the face?
They resort to attacking the reporter of these facts (argumentum
ad hominem), which enables them to ignore the facts themselves.
The episode of Father Leonard Feeney, S.J. is a case in point.

The
dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation really has
nothing to do with Father Leonard Feeney. (In fact, I had never heard
of Fr. Feeney when I came to the same conclusion – based upon
Catholic dogma – that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely
necessary for salvation and that all those who die as non-Catholics
are lost.) It has to do with the teaching of the Chair of St. Peter,
as has been shown, which is the authentic and infallible teaching of
Christ. To reject this Catholic dogma is to reject Christ Himself.

Pope
Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#
5), June 29, 1896: “But he who dissents even in one point from
divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since
he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal
motive of faith.”

Father
Feeney became famous for his public stand for the dogma Outside the
Catholic Church There is No Salvation in the 1940’s and 1950’s.
Most people fail to realize that, at that time, the world’s
bishops were by no means staunch traditionalists. Most of the world’s
bishops had already embraced the heresy of indifferentism, which
explains why almost all of them signed the heretical Vatican II
documents just a short time later. They had embraced the heretical
idea that “invincible ignorance” saves those who die as
non-Catholics. This is why one can easily detect heresy against the
dogma in most theology manuals and texts beginning as early as
the late 19th century. In fact, during his time, Father
Feeney wrote to all of the bishops of the world about the dogma
Outside the Church There is No Salvation and received only three
positive responses. In other words, only three of the world’s
bishops at that time manifested a positive belief in the dogma
Outside the Catholic Church There is No salvation as it had been
defined. It is no wonder that Vatican II went through with
virtually no resistance from the Episcopate.

Father
Feeney believed and preached the dogma – as it had been
defined – publicly in Boston. He believed and preached that
unless a man embraces the Catholic Faith – whether he be a Jew,
Muslim, Protestant or agnostic – he will perish forever in
Hell. Many converted, and many were angry. He had not a few enemies,
especially among the increasingly modernist, politically correct and
compromised clergy.

One
of his main enemies was the “Archbishop” of Boston,
Richard Cushing, a B’nai Brith (Jewish Freemasons) man of the
year, and someone who called the dogma Outside the Catholic Church
There is No Salvation “nonsense.” In April of 1949,
Cushing silenced Fr. Feeney and interdicted St. Benedict Center (the
apostolate affiliated with Fr. Feeney). The reason given by Cushing
was “disobedience,” but the real reason was Father
Feeney’s public stand for the dogma Outside the Catholic Church
There is No Salvation. It was not due to Father Feeney’s stand
against the theory of baptism of desire either, since this wasn’t
first published until 1952. Cushing’s dissatisfaction with Fr.
Feeney was strictly based on Father Feeney’s stand for the
defined dogma that only Catholics – and those who become
Catholics – can be saved.

Cushing
had allies with other heretical clergymen in Boston, the area where
the controversy erupted. “Father” John Ryan, “S.J.”,
head of the Adult Education Institute of Boston College, stated in
the fall of 1947: “I do not agree with Father Feeney’s
doctrine on salvation outside the Church.” “Father”
Stephen A. Mulcahy, “S.J.”, Dean of the College of Arts
and Sciences of Boston College, termed it: “Father Feeney’s
doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church.” And
Father J.J. McEleney, “S.J.”, Provincial of the New
England Province of the Society of Jesus, told Father Feeney in a
personal meeting, that he was being ordered to transfer to Holy Cross
College because of “Your doctrine.” Father Feeney quickly
responded, “My doctrine on what?” To which Fr. McEleney
replied, “I’m sorry, we can’t go into that.”

Right
from the start, these fallen clergymen fused the issue with Father
Feeney rather than the real source from which it came. This enabled
them to focus on Father Feeney, and ignore Jesus Christ, whose
doctrine this was.

Pope
Pius IX, Nostis et Nobiscum (#
10), Dec. 8, 1849: “In particular, ensure
that the faithful are deeply and thoroughly convinced of the
truth of the doctrine that the Catholic faith is necessary for
attaining salvation. (This
doctrine, received from Christand emphasized by the Fathers
and Councils, is also contained in the formulae of the profession of
faith used by Latin, Greek and Oriental Catholics).”

These
heretics failed to realize that to belittle a defined dogma to
something of Father Feeney’s invention is blasphemous and
severely dishonest. But God is not mocked. We see the same thing
today, especially rampant among so-called traditionalists. But I will
return to this point.

On
December 2, 1948, the President of Boston College, “Father”
William L. Keleher, S.J., held an interview with Dr. Maluf, who was
an ally of Father Feeney in the stand for the dogma. Fr. Keleher
stated:

“Father
Feeney came to me at the beginning of this situation and I would have
liked to do something except that I could not agree with his
doctrine on salvation…
He (Fr. Feeney) kept repeating such phrases as ‘There is no
salvation outside the Catholic Church.’”

When
Maluf (a member of the Boston College faculty) responded that this
“phrase” is a defined dogma, Fr. Keleher said:

“the
theologians at St. John’s Seminary and Weston College disagree
with Father Feeney’s doctrine on the salvation of
non-Catholics.”

So
there you have the case of Father Feeney in a nutshell. Father
Feeney held, as it had been defined, that there is no salvation for
those who die as non-Catholics. Those against him, including “Fr.”
Keleher (President of Boston College), the “Archbishop”
of Boston, the priests at Boston College, and the “theologians”
at St. John’s Seminary, held a different doctrine “on the
salvation of non-Catholics.” This was the battle. This
was the dividing-line. One was either on one side or the other. One
believed that there is no salvation for those who die as
non-Catholics or one believed that there is salvation for
those who die as non-Catholics. Let me quickly remind the reader on
which side he will find the Catholic Church.

Pope
Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter
Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:
“Finally some of these
misguided people attempt
to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the
Catholic religion, but
that even heretics may attain eternal life.”

A
“Jesuit” priest of the new Vatican II religion skillfully
describes what the scene was like when “the Boston Heresy Case”
(i.e., whether only those who die as Catholics can be saved) erupted
into public view during Holy Week 1949.

Mark
S. Massa, “S.J.”, Catholics
and American Culture, p. 31:
“The Boston Heresy Case
erupted into public view during Holy Week 1949. The firings of
Feeney’s disciples from Boston College made front-page news all
over the Northeast: the New
York Times began a series on
Feeney and his group, and Newsweek,
Life,
and Time
magazines all featured stories on the Boston ‘troubles.’
On perhaps the most solemn holy day of the Catholic calendar, Good
Friday, Feeneyites [sic] stood outside Boston parishes carrying
placards warning of the impending subversion of true doctrine by
Church leaders themselves and selling the latest issue of From the
Housetops. As one student of
the event has observed, the question of salvation replaced the Red
Sox as the topic of conversation in Boston bars, and anyone spied in
a Roman collar became a potential ‘lead’ in the story.
The only analogue [comparable thing] church historians could think of
was Constantinople in the fourth century, where rioting crowds had
battled in the streets over the definition of the divinity of Jesus,
and Greek theological phrases became the mottos of chariot teams.”

On
April 13, 1949, Fr. Keleher (the President of Boston College) fired
Dr. Maluf, James R. Walsh and Charles Ewaskio from the faculty at
Boston College for accusing the school of heresy against the dogma
Outside the Church There is No Salvation. In his April 14 statement
to the press explaining the reason behind their dismissal, Fr.
Keleher stated:

“They
continued to speak in class and out of class on matters contrary to
the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church, ideas leading to
bigotry and intolerance.
Their doctrine is erroneous and as such could not
be tolerated at Boston
College. They were informed that they must cease such teaching or
leave the faculty.”

One
cannot help but notice Fr. Keleher’s double-tongue: these men
were dismissed for ideas leading to intolerance, which could
not be tolerated. If intolerance is the false doctrine here,
as Fr. Keleher indicates, then he is condemned by his own mouth.
Furthermore, one cannot pass over Fr. Keleher’s brazen
assertion that “Their doctrine [i.e., the solemnly defined
dogma that those who die as non-Catholics cannot be saved] is
erroneous.” By this statement Keleher is asserting that the
Church’s doctrine (on no salvation outside the Church) is
erroneous and in no way his own. This was the type of heretical,
anti-Catholic character in league with “Archbishop”
Richard Cushing in the quest to crush Fr. Feeney’s preaching of
the dogma.

This
was the beginning of the end, so to speak, as will be seen when we
look at what has resulted in Boston as a result of their selling out
of the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.

Protocol
122/49 (Suprema haec sacra)

About
four months after the silencing of Fr. Feeney in April by Richard
Cushing, the apostate “Archbishop” of Boston, the
so-called Holy Office issued a document on August 8, 1949. Actually,
the document was a letter addressed to Bishop Cushing, and signed by
“Cardinal” Marchetti-Selvaggiani, known to most as
Protocol No. 122/49. It is also called Suprema haec sacra and
the Marchetti-Selvaggiani letter. It is one of the most crucial
documents in regard to the modern apostasy from the faith. Protocol
122/49 was not published in the Acts of the Apostolic See
(Acta Apostolicae Sedis) but in The Pilot, the news
organ for the Archdiocese of Boston.

Protocol
122/49 has no binding character; that is to say, Protocol 122/49 is
not an infallible or binding teaching of the Catholic Church.
Protocol 122/49 was not signed by Pope Pius XII either, and has the
authority of a correspondence of two Cardinals (Marchetti-Selvaggiani
who wrote the letter, and “Cardinal” Ottaviani who also
signed it) to one archbishop – which is none. The
letter, in fact, and to put it simply, is fraught with heresy,
deceit, ambiguity and betrayal. Immediately after the publication of
Protocol 122/49, The Worcester Telegram ran a typical
headline:

VATICAN
RULES AGAINST HUB DISSIDENTS – [Vatican] Holds
No Salvation Outside Church Doctrine To Be False

This
was the impression given to almost the entire Catholic world by
Protocol 122/49 – the Marchetti-Selvaggiani letter.
Protocol 122/49, as the above headline bluntly said, held the “No
Salvation Outside the Church Doctrine” to be false. By this
fateful letter, the enemies of the dogma and the Church appeared to
have been vindicated and the defenders of the dogma seemed to have
been vanquished. The problem for the apparent victors, however, was
that this document was nothing more than a letter from two heretical
so-called cardinals of the Holy Office, who had already embraced the
heresy later adopted by Vatican II, to one apostate “archbishop”
in Boston. Some may be surprised that I describe “Cardinal”
Ottaviani as heretical, since he is considered by many to have been
orthodox. If his signature on the Protocol isn’t enough proof
for his heresy, consider that he signed all of the Vatican II
documents and aligned himself with the post-Vatican II revolution.

It’s
interesting that even Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, the well known
editor of The American Ecclesiastical Review before Vatican
II, who was unfortunately a defender of Protocol 122/49, was forced
to admit that it’s not infallible:

Msgr.
Joseph Clifford Fenton, The
Catholic Church and Salvation,
1958, p. 103: “This letter, known as Suprema
haec sacra [Protocol 122/49]…
is an authoritative [sic], though obviously not
infallible, document. That
is to say, the teachings
contained in Suprema
haec sacra are not to
be accepted as infallibly true on the authority of this particular
document.”

In
other words, according to Fenton, the teaching of Suprema haec
sacra is not infallible and must be found in earlier documents;
but it isn’t, as we will see. Fenton is simply wrong when he
says that Suprema haec sacra is nevertheless authoritative.
Suprema haec sacra is neither authoritative nor infallible,
but heretical and false.

Since
almost the entire public was (and is) given the impression that
Protocol 122/49 represented the official teaching of the Catholic
Church, it constituted the selling out of Jesus Christ, His doctrine
and His Church to the world, a selling out that had to take place
before the wholesale apostasy of Vatican II. By Protocol 122/49 and
the persecution of Fr. Feeney, the public was given the impression
that the Catholic Church had now overturned a 20 centuries’ old
dogma of the faith: that the Catholic Faith is definitely necessary
for salvation. And even to this day, if one were to ask almost
every so-called Catholic priest in the world about the dogma Outside
the Catholic Church There is No Salvation, he would probably be
answered with a reference to the Father Feeney controversy and
Protocol 122/49, even if the priest is unable to identify or recall
the specific names and dates. Try it, I know from experience. A huge
amount of basically all of the Novus Ordo priests who know anything
about the issue will use Protocol 122/49 and the “condemnation”
of Fr. Feeney to justify their heretical, anti-Catholic, antichrist,
anti-magisterial belief that men can be saved in non-Catholic
religions and without the Catholic Faith. These are the fruits of the
infamous Protocol 122/49. And by their fruits you shall know them
(Mt. 7:16).

Now
let’s take a look at a few excerpts from the Protocol:

Suprema
haec sacra, Protocol 122/49,
Aug. 8, 1949: “Now, among those things which the Church has
always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that
infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no
salvation outside the Church.
However,
this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church
herself understands it.”

Let’s
stop it right there. Already it’s clear that the author of the
Protocol is preparing the reader’s mind to accept something
different than simply “that infallible statement by which we
are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.” The
author is clearly easing into an explanation of the phrase “Outside
the Church There is No Salvation” other than what the words
themselves state and declare. If the author were not preparing the
reader to accept an understanding other than what the words of the
dogma themselves state and declare, then he would have simply
written: “This dogma must be understood as the Church has
defined it, exactly as the words state and declare.”

Compare
the Protocol’s attempt to explain the dogma away with Pope
Gregory XVI’s treatment of the same issue in his encyclical
Summo Iugiter Studio.

Pope
Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter
Studio, May 27, 1832, on no
salvation outside the Church: “Finally
some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and
others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion,
but that even heretics may
attain eternal life…
You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that
article of faith which these dare to deny,
namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for
salvation… Omitting other appropriate passages which
are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers,
We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that
THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING OF
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. He says:
‘The holy universal
Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in
her and asserts that all
who are outside of her will not be saved.’
Official acts of the Church
proclaim the same dogma. Thus,
in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of
Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There
is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one
is saved.’
Finally the same dogma is also expressly mentioned in the profession
of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin
churches use, but also that which… other Eastern Catholics
use. We did not mention these selected testimonies because We
thought you were ignorant of that article of faith and in need of Our
instruction. Far be it from Us to have such an absurd and insulting
suspicion about you. But We are so concerned about this serious and
well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable
audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this
truth with many testimonies.”

Pope
Gregory XVI does not try to to explain this dogma away, by saying,
“However, this dogma must be understood in
that sense in which the Church herself understands it,” as
does the heretical Protocol 122/49. No, he unequivocally affirms that
THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Throughout
the whole encyclical, Gregory XVI does not fail to repeatedly affirm
the true and literal meaning of the phrase Outside the Church There
is No Salvation, without qualification or exception, as it had been
defined. Father Feeney and his allies in defense of the dogma were
reiterating exactly what Gregory XVI officially taught above.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that if
Protocol 122/49 was written to “correct” the
understanding of Father Feeney on Outside the Church There is No
Salvation (which it was), then Protocol 122/49 was also “correcting”
the understanding of Pope Gregory XVI and all of the infallible
statements on the topic for 20 centuries.

Also,
notice that Pope Gregory XVI makes reference to the dogmatic
definition of the Fourth Lateran Council to substantiate
his position and literal understanding of the formula Outside the
Church There is No Salvation. Throughout the whole document, Protocol
122/49 makes no reference to any
of the dogmatic definitions on this topic. This is because Pope
Gregory XVI, being a Catholic, knew that the only understanding of a
dogma that exists is that which Holy Mother Church has once declared;
while the authors of the Protocol, being heretics, did not believe
that a dogma is to be understood exactly as it was once declared.
That explains why Pope Gregory cited exactly what Holy Mother Church
has once declared and the authors of the Protocol did not.

Pope
Pius IX, First Vatican Council,
Sess. 3, Chap. 4, On Faith and Reason: “Hence, also, that
understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained,
which Holy Mother Church
has once declared; and
there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious
name of a deeper understanding.”

If
the understanding of the dogma Outside the Church There is No
Salvation was not clear from the teaching of the Chair of Peter (the
infallible definitions on the topic), then a 1949 letter of
“Cardinal” Marchetti-Selvaggiani is certainly not going
to give it to us! And if no exceptions or qualifications to this
dogma were understood at the time of the definitions – nor at
the time of Pope Gregory XVI – then it is impossible for
exceptions to come into our understanding of the dogma after that
point (e.g., in 1949), because the dogma had already been defined and
taught long before. Discovery of a new understanding of the
dogma in 1949 is a denial of the understanding of the dogma as
it had been defined. But define new dogma is indeed what the Protocol
tried to do. I continue with the Protocol.

Suprema
haec sacra, Protocol 122/49,
Aug. 8, 1949: “Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one
holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be
incorporated by Baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is
the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar...
Therefore, no one will be saved
who, knowingthe Church to have been
divinely established by Christ,
nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience
from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.”

Here
the Protocol begins to enter into its new explanation of the
dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation, but in a
diabolically clever manner. The ambiguity lies in the fact that this
statement is true: no one who, knowing the
Church to have been divinely established, nevertheless refuses to
submit to Her and the Roman Pontiff will be saved. But everyone
reading this document is also given the clear impression by this
language that some people, who have unknowingly failed to
submit to the Church and the Roman Pontiff, can be saved. This is
heretical and would actually make it counterproductive to convince
people that the Catholic Church is divinely established!

Compare
the dogmatic definition of the Catholic Church with the addition to
the dogma by Protocol 122/49.

The
Dogma:

Pope
Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam,
Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and
proclaim to every human
creature that they by
absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman
Pontiff.”

The
Addition by Protocol 122/49:

Suprema
haec sacra, Protocol 122/49,
Aug. 8, 1949: “Therefore, no one will be saved who,
knowing
the Church to have been divinely established
by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds
obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.”

The
reader can easily see that the intended meaning of Protocol 122/49 is
a departure from the understanding of the dogma which Holy Mother
Church has once declared. No one can deny this. The dogma of the
necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff for salvation has gone
from application to every human creature (Boniface VIII) to
“those knowing the Church to have been divinely established”
(Protocol 122/49), again making it foolish to convince people that
the Church is divinely established. I continue with the Protocol:

Suprema
haec sacra, Protocol 122/49,
Aug. 8, 1949: “In his infinite mercy God has willed that the
effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation
which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic
necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in
certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and
longing... The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church,
in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that
one may obtain eternal salvation, it
is not always required that he be incorporated
into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at
least he be united to her by desire and longing.”

Here
one detects another denial of the dogma as it was defined, and a
departure from the understanding of the dogma that Holy Mother Church
has once declared. Compare the following dogmatic definition of Pope
Eugene IV with these paragraphs from Protocol 122/49, especially the
underlined portions.

The
Dogma:

Pope
Eugene IV, Council of Florence,
“Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex
cathedra: “The Holy
Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of
those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also
Jews, heretics and schismatics can become participants in eternal
life, but they will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was
prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless
before the end of life they have been added to the flock; and
that the unity of this
ecclesiastical body
(ecclesiastici corporis)
is so strong that only for
those who abide in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for
salvation, and do fasts,
almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of a Christian
soldier produce eternal rewards. No one, whatever almsgiving he has
practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be
saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the
Catholic Church.”

We
see that Protocol 122/49 (quoted above) is denying the necessity of
incorporation into the ecclesiastici corporis,
which is heresy!

It
was necessary to be in the Church’s “bosom
and unity” (Eugene IV), but now it is “not
always required to be incorporated into the
Church actually as a member” (Protocol 122/49). The defined
dogma of INCORPORATION and actually abiding in the ecclesiastical
body (ecclesiastici corporis) has been denied. This is heresy!

Those
who refuse to believe in the dogma Outside the Church There is No
Salvation until they understand how there is justice in it are
simply withholding their Faith in Christ’s revelation.
Those with the true Faith in Christ (and His Church) accept His
teaching first and understand the truth in it (i.e., why
it is true) second. A Catholic does not withhold his belief in
Christ’s revelation until he can understand it. That is the
mentality of a faithless heretic who possesses insufferable pride.
St. Anselm sums up the true Catholic outlook on this point.

St.
Anselm, Doctor of the Church, Prosologion, Chap. 1: “For
I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I
believe in order to understand. For this also I believe, that
unless I believed, I should not understand.”

All
the people who die in cultures which have never been penetrated by
the Gospel go to Hell for sins against the natural law and the other
grave sins which they commit – which bad will and failure to
cooperate with God’s grace is the reason He does not reveal the
Gospel to them. The First Vatican Council defined infallibly, based
on Romans 1, that the one true God can be known with certitude by the
things which have been made, and by the natural light of human
reason.

St.
Paul, Romans 1:18-20: “For the wrath of God is revealed from
Heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain
the truth of God in injustice: Because that which is known of God is
manifest in them. For God hath manifested it to them. For the
invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly
seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power
also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.”

Everyone
can know with certainty that there is a supreme spiritual being, Who
is the One True God and the Creator of the world and all that it
contains. Everyone knows that God is not something that they have
carved out of wood or jade or stone. They know that God is not the
tree that they worship or the river they worship or the rock or the
snake or the sacred tree frog. They know that these things aren’t
the Creator of the universe. Every such person knows that he is
worshiping a creature rather than the Creator. They are, as St. Paul
says in verse 20, without excuse. St. Augustine explains this well in
reference to persons who died ignorant of the Faith and without
baptism.

St.
Augustine (+428): “… God foreknew that if they had
lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard
it without belief.”

St.
Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, A. 11, ad 1: “Objection:
It is possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or
among wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything about the
faith.” St. Thomas replies: “It is the characteristic
of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for
salvation… provided on his part there is no hindrance. In the
case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of
natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal
inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of
the faith to him…”

St.
Thomas Aquinas, Sent. II, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4: “If a man born
among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show
him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending
a teacher to him.”

St.
Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a
man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless
he culpably wishes to remain where he is.”

All
baptized infants are Catholics, even if they are baptized in a
Methodist church-building, etc. This is de fide. The
Catholic Church has always taught that anyone (including a layman or
a non-Catholic) can validly baptize if he adheres to proper matter
and form and if he has the intention of doing what the Church does.

Pope
Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,”
1439: “In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or a
deacon, but even a layman or woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic
can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church and has
the intention of doing what the Church does.” (Denzinger
696)

The
Church has always taught that infants baptized in heretical and
schismatic churches are made Catholics, members of the Church and
subjects of the Roman Pontiff, even if the people who baptized them
are heretics who are outside the Catholic Church. This is because the
infant, being below the age of reason, cannot be a heretic or
schismatic. He cannot have an impediment which would prevent Baptism
from making him a member of the Church.

Pope
Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 13 on the Sacrament
of Baptism: “If anyone shall say that infants, because
they have not actual faith, after having received baptism are not
to be numbered among the faithful… let him be anathema.”

This
means that all baptized infants wherever they are, even those
baptized in heretical non-Catholic churches by heretical ministers,
are made members of the Catholic Church. They are also made subject
to the Roman Pontiff (if there is one). So, at what one point does
this baptized Catholic infant become a non-Catholic – severing
his membership in the Church and subjection to the Roman Pontiff?
After the baptized infant reaches the age of reason, he or she
becomes a heretic or a schismatic and severs his membership in the
Church and severs subjection to the Roman Pontiff when he or she
obstinately rejects any
teaching of the Catholic Church or loses Faith in the essential
mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation.

Pope
Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351: “…We
ask: In the first place whether you and the Church of the
Armenians which is obedient to you, believe that all those
who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith, and
afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the
communion of this same Roman Church, which one alone is
Catholic, are schismatic and heretical, IF THEY REMAIN
OBSTINATELY SEPARATED FROM THE
FAITH of this Roman Church. In the second place, we ask
whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of
the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the
obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.”

So,
one must be clear on these points: 1) The unbaptized (Jews, Muslims,
pagans, etc.) must all join the Catholic Church by receiving Baptism
and the Catholic Faith or they will all be lost, whether
adults or children. 2) Among those who are baptized validly as
infants, they are made Catholics, members of the Church and subjects
of the Roman Pontiff by Baptism. They only sever that membership
(which they already possess) when they obstinately reject any
Catholic dogma or believe something contrary to the Natural Law or
the essential mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation. In the
teaching of Pope Clement VI above, we see this second point clearly
taught: all who receive the Catholic Faith in Baptism lose that Faith
and become schismatic and heretical if they become “obstinately
separated from the faith of this Roman Church.”

There
is no way on earth that the teaching of Protocol 122/49 is compatible
with the teaching of Pope Eugene IV and Pope Boniface VIII. To
accept, believe or promote the Protocol is to act contrary to these
definitions.

I
continue with the Protocol:

Suprema
haec sacra, Protocol 122/49,
Aug. 8, 1949: “However, this desire need not always be
explicit, as it is in catechumens; but
when a person is involved in invincible ignorance,
God accepts also an implicit
desire, so called because it
is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes
his will to be conformed to the will of God.”

Here
the heresy comes out quite bluntly. People who don’t hold
the Catholic Faith – who are “involved in invincible
ignorance” – can also be united by “implicit”
desire, as long as “a person wishes his will to be conformed to
the will of God.” And I remind the reader that Protocol
122/49 was written in specific contradistinction to Fr. Feeney’s
statement that all who die as non-Catholics are lost. That is to
say, the Protocol was written to specifically distinguish its own
teaching from Fr. Feeney’s affirmation that all who die as
non-Catholics are lost, which shows that the Protocol was teaching
that people who die as non-Catholics and in false religions can be
saved. Thus, the Protocol’s statement above is quite obviously,
and nothing other than, the heresy that one can be saved in any
religion or in no religion, as long as morality is maintained.

Fr.
Michael Muller, C.SS.R., The
Catholic Dogma, pp. 217-218:
“Inculpable or invincible
ignorance has never been and will never be a means of salvation.
To be saved, it is necessary to be justified, or to be in the state
of grace. In order to obtain sanctifying grace, it is necessary to
have the proper dispositions for justification; that is, true divine
faith in at least the necessary truths of salvation, confident hope
in the divine Savior, sincere sorrow for sin, together with the firm
purpose of doing all that God has commanded, etc. Now,
these supernatural acts of faith, hope, charity, contrition, etc.,
which prepare the soul for receiving sanctifying grace, can
never be supplied by
invincible ignorance; and if invincible ignorance cannot supply the
preparation for receiving sanctifying grace, much less can it bestow
sanctifying grace itself. ‘Invincible ignorance,’ says
St. Thomas, ‘is a punishment for sin.’
(De, Infid. Q. x., art. 1).”

Compare
the above passage from the Protocol with the following dogmatic
definitions.

The
Dogma:

Pope
Eugene IV, Council of Florence,
Session 8, Nov. 22, 1439, “The Athanasian Creed”, ex
cathedra: “Whoever
wishes to be saved, before all things it
is necessary that he holds the Catholic faith.
Unless a person keeps this
faith whole and undefiled, without a doubt he shall perish
eternally.”

Pope
Pius IV, Council of Trent,
“Iniunctum nobis,” Nov. 13, 1565, ex
cathedra: “This
true Catholic faith,
outside of which no
one can be
saved… I now
profess and truly hold…”

Pope
Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos,
March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This
faith of the Catholic Church,
without which no one
can be saved, and which of my
own accord I now profess and truly hold…”

Pope
Pius IX, Vatican Council I,
Session 2, Profession of Faith: “This
true Catholic faith,
outside of which none
can be saved, which I now
freely profess and truly hold…”

I
continue with the Protocol:

Suprema
haec sacra, “Protocol
122/49,” Aug. 8, 1949: “Towards the end of the same
encyclical letter, when most
affectionately inviting to unity those
who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church(qui
ad Ecclesiae Catholicae compagnem non
pertinent), he mentions
those who are ‘ordered to the Redeemer’s Mystical Body by
a sort of unconscious desire and intention,’ and these
he by no means excludes from eternal salvation,
but, on the contrary, asserts that they are in a condition in which,
‘they cannot be secure about their own eternal salvation,’
since ‘they still lack so many and such great heavenly helps to
salvation that can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church.’”

In
the process of giving its false analysis of Pope Pius XII’s
encyclical Mystici Corporis, Suprema haec sacra teaches
that people who “do not belong” to the Body of the
Church can be saved. What’s interesting about this
heretical passage in Protocol 122/49 is that even Msgr. Fenton (one
of its greatest defenders) admits that one cannot say that the
Soul of the Church is more extensive than the Body.

Msgr.
Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation,
1958, p. 127: “By all means the most important and the
most widely employed of all the inadequate explanations of the
Church’s necessity for salvation was the one that centered
around a distinction between the ‘body’ and the ‘soul’
of the Catholic Church. The individual who tried to explain
the dogma in this fashion generally designated the visible Church
itself as the ‘body’ of the Church and applied the term
‘soul of the Church’ either to grace and the supernatural
virtues or some fancied ‘invisible Church.’…there
were several books and articles claiming that, while the ‘soul’
of the Church was in some way not separated from the ‘body,’
it was actually more extensive than this ‘body.’
Explanations of the Church’s necessity drawn up in terms of
this distinction were at best inadequate and confusing and all too
frequently infected with serious error.”

Hence,
to say that it is not necessary to belong to the Body, as
Suprema haec sacra (the Protocol) does, is to say that it is
not necessary to belong to the Church. Therefore, by its statement
above, Protocol 122/49 taught the heresy that it is not necessary
to belong to the Catholic Church to be saved,
the very thing denounced by Pius XII.

Pope
Pius XII, Humani
Generis
(#27), 1950: “Some say they are not bound by the doctrine,
explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on
the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of
Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same. Some
reduce to a meaningless formula the
necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal
salvation.”

This
is extremely significant, for it proves that the teaching of
Suprema haec sacra – and therefore the
teaching of Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton who defended it – is
heretical. They both deny the necessity of “belonging”
to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.

Pope
Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council,
Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex
cathedra: “For, regulars
and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong
to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved,
and they all have one Lord and one faith. That is why it is fitting
that, belonging to the one
same body, they also have
the one same will…”

Less
than three months after the Marchetti-Selvaggianni letter was
published in part in The Pilot, Father Feeney
was expelled from the Jesuit Order on October 28, 1949. Father
Feeney stood strong against the heretics’ attempts to beat him
down and get him to submit to the heresy that non-Catholics can be
saved. Referring to the August 8th letter of
Marchetti-Selvaggiani (Protocol 122/49), Father Feeney rightly
stated: “it can be considered as having established a two-sided
policy in order to propagate error.”

The
reality was that Father Feeney’s expulsion from the Jesuit
Order had no validity. The men who expelled him and the clerics who
were against him were automatically expelled from the Catholic Church
for adhering to the heresy that those who die as non-Catholics can be
saved. This is similar to the situation in the 5th
century, when the Patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius, began to
preach the heresy that Mary was not the Mother of God. The faithful
reacted, accused Nestorius of heresy and denounced him as a heretic
who was outside the Catholic Church. And Nestorius was later
condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431. Here is what Pope St.
Celestine I stated about those who had been excommunicated by
Nestorius after he began to preach heresy.

Pope
St. Celestine I, 5th Century: “The
authority of Our Apostolic See has determined
that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or
excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after
the latter began to preach heresyshall not be considered
deposed or excommunicated.
For he who had defected
from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone
whatsoever.”

Pope
St. Celestine authoritatively confirms the principle that a public
heretic is a person with no authority to depose, excommunicate or
expel. The quote is found in De Romano Pontifice, the work
of St. Robert Bellarmine. This explains why all of the persecution
against Father Feeney (expulsion, interdiction, etc.) had no
validity, because he was right and those who were against him were
wrong. He defended the dogma that there is no salvation outside the
Church, while his opponents defended the heresy that there is
salvation outside the Church.

St.
Robert Bellarmine (1610), Doctor of the Church,De
Romano Pontifice:
“A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per
se)
ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a
Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and
punished by the Church. This
is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers
who teach that manifest
heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”

Things
between Father Feeney and the heretics in Boston remained unchanged
until September 14, 1952. At this point, Richard Cushing, the
so-called Archbishop of Boston, demanded that Father Feeney retract
his “interpretation” of the dogma – which means
retract the dogma – and make an explicit profession of
submission to the Marchetti-Selvaggiani letter (Protocol 122/49).
With four witnesses, Father Feeney presented himself before Cushing.
He told him that his only option was to declare the letter of
Marchetti-Selvaggiani “absolutely scandalous because it was
frankly heretical.” This is exactly what Pope Gregory XVI
would have said about the horrible Protocol letter, as well as any
Catholic.

During
their meeting, Fr. Feeney asked “Archbishop” Cushing if
he was in agreement with the Aug. 8, 1949 letter of
Marchetti-Selvaggiani. Cushing responded, “I am not a
theologian. All that I know is what I am told.” This evasive
and non-committal answer shows the true colors of Cushing, this
heretic, false pastor and enemy of Jesus Christ. If Cushing believed
that one was bound to the letter, then he should have responded
without hesitation that he agreed with it. But because he didn’t
want to defend the letter in any of its details, especially its
denials of dogma, he responded by evading the question. This evasion
prohibited Fr. Feeney from putting him on the spot and convicting him
with the dogma that was being denied. Father Feeney accused Cushing
of failing in his duty and left.

Heresy
before Vatican II

To
fully appreciate the Father Feeney controversy one must understand
that the denial of the Faith that Father Feeney was combating was
well in place in the years before Vatican II. Most people considering
themselves to be “traditional Catholics” have the false
impression that, “if we could only go back to what people
believed in the 1950’s, everything would be fine.”
No, it wouldn’t. Most of the priests and bishops in the 1940’s
and 1950’s had already lost the Faith and had completely
rejected the solemnly defined dogma that there is no salvation
outside the Catholic Church. It is simply a fact that heresy against
the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation was being taught
in most seminaries in the 1940’s and 50’s. In fact, the
breakdown of the Faith began much earlier than the 1940’s or
50’s.

Our
Lady of La Salette, France, Sept. 19, 1846: “In the year
1864, Lucifer together with a large number of demons will be unloosed
from hell; they will put an end to faith little by little, even
in those dedicated to God. They will blind them in such a way, that,
unless they are blessed with a special grace, these people will take
on the spirit of these angels of hell; several religious
institutions will lose all faith and will lose many souls…
Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist…
The Church will be in eclipse…”

St.
Anthony Mary Claret, the only canonized saint at the First Vatican
Council, had a stroke because of the false doctrines that were being
proposed even then, which never made their way into the council. The
step-by-step dismantling of the Catholic Faith by Lucifer began, not
in 1964, but in 1864, long before Vatican II. Let’s take a look
at some examples of blatant heresy in pre-Vatican II books with
Imprimaturs (i.e., the approval of a bishop).

1.The Catholic Encyclopedia,
Vol. 3, “Church,” 1908, G. H. Joyce: “The doctrine
is summed up in the phrase, Extra
Ecclesiam nulla salus (Outside the Church there is no salvation)…
It certainly does not mean that
none can be saved except those who are in visible communion with the
Catholic Church. The Catholic
Church has ever taught that nothing else is needed to obtain
justification than an act of perfect charity and of contrition…
Many are kept from the Church by ignorance. Such
may be the case of numbers among those who have been brought up in
heresy… Thus, even
in the case in which God
saves men apart from the Church,
He does so through the Church’s actual graces… In the
expression of theologians, they
belong to the soul of the Church,
though not to its body.”

What
we have here, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, in the year 1908,
in a book with the Imprimatur of John Farley, the Archbishop of New
York, is blatant heresy. The author, G.H. Joyce, completely rejects
the dogma as it has been defined. He even employs the “Soul of
the Church Heresy” which is completely heretical. The defined
dogma which declared that only those in the Catholic Church can be
saved, has given way to the heresy that God saves men “apart
from the Church.”

Pope
Leo XIII, Tametsi futura
prospicientibus (# 7), Nov. 1,
1900: “Hence all who
would find salvation apart
from the Church,
are led astray and strive in vain.”

But
to these heretics, no longer does this dogma mean that outside the
Church there is no salvation, but rather that non-Catholics are saved
in their false religions but by the Catholic Church.
The necessity of Catholic faith and unity for salvation has been
utterly repudiated.

Pope
Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter
Studio, May 27, 1832: “Finally
some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and
others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but
that even heretics may attain eternal life…
You know how zealously Our
predecessors taught that
article of faith which these dare to deny,
namely the necessity of
the Catholic faith and of unity
for salvation.”

And
this proves that the dogma that those who die as non-Catholics cannot
be saved was being denied publicly even as early as 1908.

2.
My Catholic Faith,
a Catechism by Bishop Louis LaRavoire, 1949: “Holy Mass may be
offered for the living of whatever creed. It may be offered for
departed Catholics. The
priest may not offer Mass publicly for departed non-Catholics, but
the persons hearing the Mass may do so.”

Here
we find more clear heresy in a catechism written by the Bishop of
Krishnager, Louis LaRavoire. This Catechism is still promoted today
by many so-called “traditional Catholics.” By permitting
prayer for departed non-Catholics, Louis LaRavoire denies the dogma
that all who depart life as non-Catholics are lost.

Pope
Clement VI, Super quibusdam,
Sept. 20, 1351: “In the second place, we ask whether you and
the Armenians obedient to you believe that no
manof
the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church,
and outside the obedience to the Pope of Rome, can
finally be saved.”

3.
Baltimore Catechism No. 3, 1921, Imprimatur Archbishop Hayes
of New York: “Q. 510. Is it ever possible for one to be saved
who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church? A. It
is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church
to be the true Church, provided that person (1) has been validly
baptized; (2) firmly believes the religion he professes and practices
to be the true religion, and (3) dies without the guilt of mortal sin
on his soul.”

Here
we find blatant heresy in the Baltimore Catechism, imprimatured and
published in 1921. The authors of this heretical catechism are bold
enough to assert that salvation for a non-Catholic is not only
possible, but dependent upon whether the non-Catholic “firmly
believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true
religion.” So if you’re firmly convinced that
Mormonism is the true religion, then you’ve got a good shot at
salvation “provided that person (1) has been validly baptized”,
according to the Baltimore Catechism; but if you’re not firmly
convinced of this then your chances are less. This makes an absolute
mockery of the dogma: one Lord, one faith and one baptism (Eph. 4:5).

Pope
Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos
(# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle that
‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5) may
those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation
is open to persons of any religion whatever. They
should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who
are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and
that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him.Therefore, ‘without a
doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith
whole and inviolate’(Athanasian Creed).”

The
words of Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos could have been written
specifically to the authors of the Baltimore Catechism; and indeed
they were addressed to other heretics in his day who proposed the
same thing. Notice how far the Baltimore Catechism has come from
the dogmatic Athanasian Creed, which Gregory XVI affirmed, which
states that whoever wishes to be saved must hold the Catholic Faith.
The authors of the Baltimore Catechism could not have, in their
wildest imagination, pretended to believe in that dogmatic profession
of faith.

The
reader should also note that Pope Gregory XVI teaches that those
who have never been Catholic are lost, as well as Catholics who
leave the Church.

The
Baltimore Catechism rejects the words of Jesus Christ, who declared
that “he that believeth not shall be condemned”
(Mk. 16:16). The revised edition of the Scriptures by the authors of
the Baltimore Catechism would have to read: “he that
believeth firmly in false religions shall not be condemned.”

4.
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,
by Ludwig Ott, Imprimatur 1954, p. 310: “The necessity for
belonging to the Church is not merely a necessity of precept, but
also of means, as the comparison with the Ark, the means of salvation
from the biblical flood, plainly shows… In special
circumstances, namely, in the case of invincible ignorance or of
incapability, actual membership of the Church can be replaced by the
desire for the same… In
this manner also those who are in point of fact outside
the Catholic Church
can achieve salvation.”

In
truth, what Ludwig Ott says above is equivalent to declaring that the
Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived in Original Sin. There is no
difference whatsoever. If the Church defines that outside
the Church no one at all is saved (Pope Innocent
III, etc.), and I assert that “those who are in point of
fact outside the Catholic Church can
achieve salvation,” then I am doing the exact same
thing as if I were to declare that the Virgin Mary was conceived in
some sin, when the Church said she had no sin. I would be stating
exactly the opposite of what the Church had infallibly defined, and
this is precisely what Ludwig Ott does.

But
shortly after explicitly denying the dogma that no one can be saved
outside the Church, notice what Ludwig Ott says:

Ludwig
Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic
Dogma, p. 311: “It
is the unanimous conviction of the Fathers that salvation cannot
be achieved outside the
Church.”

It’s
a pity that Ludwig Ott does not adhere to the unanimous conviction of
the Fathers but goes on for another couple of hundred pages with his
“wisdom.”

For
the pre-Vatican II heretics who condemned Father Feeney and despised
the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation,
it is no problem believing that there is salvation outside the
Catholic Church, while simultaneously believing that there is no
salvation outside the Catholic Church. It is no problem for these
people because they are of evil (Mt. 5:37).

Pope
Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
“… one universal Church, outside of which there is
no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one
faith, and one baptism…”

Those
who obstinately accept the heresy that is
contained in these pre-Vatican II books – such as Ludwig Ott’s
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma – should rightly fear, as
Pope Gregory XVI says, because they will without a doubt inherit a
place in Hell if they do not repent and convert.

5.
The Catechism Explained, Rev. Spirago and Rev. Clark, 1898:
“If, however, a man, through no fault of his own, remains
outside the Church, he may be saved if
he lead a God-fearing life; for such a one is to all intents and
purposes a member of the Catholic Church.”

According
to this, it’s not only possible to be saved outside the
Church (which is a direct denial of the dogma), but it’s
actually possible to be, “for all intents and purposes,”
a member of the Catholic Church while still outside of Her! This is
so heretical and contradictory that it’s not worthy of further
comment, except to say that what The Catechism Explained proposes
here – that a man can be saved outside the Church as long as he
leads “a God-fearing life” – is exactly what Pope
Gregory XVI condemned in Mirari Vos: that a man may be saved
in any religion whatsoever, so long as morality is maintained.

Pope
Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “This
perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked
who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the
soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality
is maintained… without a doubt, they will perish forever,
unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate (Athanasian
Creed)."

I
could continue with examples of pre-Vatican II imprimatured texts
which contain heresy, but the point should be obvious: the denial of
the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation
was well in place in the minds of most priests and bishops before
Vatican II, so the opposition Father Feeney experienced in defending
this truth in the late 1940’s and 1950’s comes as no
surprise. The Great Apostasy was well in place in the 1940’s
and 50’s, having actually begun in the mid to late 1800’s,
and Father Feeney was attempting to stifle this tide of apostasy by
cutting away at its root cause: the denial of the necessity of the
Catholic Church for salvation.

Copyright: All videos and articles on our site are free to copy and share for free. Please remember to also include live links to the source of the info.
We are looking for translators who have the skill to make a good translation of important articles for the salvation of souls. We are also in need of translators who can translate Saint Bridget's Revelations into different languages. If you can help us on this important work, please contact us here.
We need your help! We are spending all the time our expenses among things like websites, webhotels, and giving away free material, dvds and books in order to warn people and tell them the truth. So if you like the material and want to help us—and be yourself a sharer—in saving souls, then please make a donation, pray for us and help us spread it in order to help our beloved brothers and sisters who have not found this information yet. If you have been graced by God with the means to do so, please support our work. Any donation that you can give is highly appreciated and much needed! Help us help our beloved brothers' and sisters' souls. Your Support Counts! All for the Glory of God and the salvation of souls! Please click here!
"And whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward." Matthew 10:42